Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one music downloads of 2010 (Canada) (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. The delete arguments are weak (meeting WP:V currently is not required for inclusion), but those who support keeping the articles don't really address the issue being disussed. This one isn't a NPASR close, but it seems like what we really need is a discussion on whether being fully sourced is necessary to keep these articles. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

List of number-one music downloads of 2010 (Canada)
AfDs for this article:  Large number of missing sources. I have looked and can't find anything to verify any of the very many unsourced positions; nothing published by CANOE seems to have any kind of archive. We had the same problem with the 2004-present Canadian Country Singles and Canadian Country Albums charts, which are published in a similar fashion and similarly lack any sort of searchable archive to verify the info (see Articles for deletion/List of number-one country hits of 2010 (Canada)). Note that the 2011 article is cited only to a single page on canoe.ca, which displays only the present week's chart and no sort of archive to search previous weeks' positions.
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Last AFD was no consensus after two weeks, with no prejudice against re-nomination. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep, consider wielding trout against nominator. The previous AFD was closed only eight minutes before this one was opened, and the nominator has made no attempt to address the major issue at the prior AFD -- that the argument for deletion is expressly contradicted by policy provisions of WP:V, which provide quite clearly that "lack of any searchable [online] archive," as the nominator asserts, is not a demonstration of unverifiablity. "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources." The material in question is undeniably published by a reliable source, and appears to be freely available by subscription, as well as freely accessible online during the week of current publication, meaning that the content can be preserved via webcitation and similar services. Had not the user who was doing been driven away from the project, this wouldn't be a problem. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If it helps, I e-mailed Nielsen about their charts and they said that no, they do not have an archive available via subscription. Also, WebCitation and Wayback machine still leave many, many gaps; I found this when trying to find some sort of archival for the Canadian Country Albums chart. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Comment. Holster that trout pardner, WP:NPASR means that one is free to renominate 8 seconds after the close if he wants to. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - The argument for deletion clearly fails on what it takes to be nominated to be deleted. Eduemoni↑talk↓  01:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Technical Keep Classic example of why you WP:Don't bludgeon the process, even if you are a Hammer. Should be withdrawn until the "flaws" have had to the opportunity to be worked out, since it just slid through AFD less than 10 minutes prior to the nom.  Sorry Hammer, but jeez, give an article 30 days between AFDs and you don't have to hear this stuff, then there isn't a question about faith in the nom and it can stand on its own merits.  While my personal experience has been that Hammer acts in good faith, he has to understand that it looks bad when you stack AFDs that way, and honestly, nothing is gained by bludgeoning it, and nothing is lost by waiting a wee bit.   Dennis Brown (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete due to failing WP:V. If it can't be verified (and someone saying that they saw it at some point nor do I consider Wayback to be wholly reliable) it shouldn't be included, regardless of notability.  Ravendrop 06:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" /> Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep – There does appear to be a misunderstanding here that WP:V requires that sources are easily accessible online... Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 03:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You missed something... I clearly said that I contacted Neilsen personally, and they said it's not accessible OFFline either. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I commend you for going to that effort to contact Neilsen, and I ought to have said so right off. But what I'm trying to say is that a reliable source does not suddenly become unreliable just because a link goes dead, even if it does make it more difficult for us to personally verify the information. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 13:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.